Advertisment2

Google+ Followers

"Believing Christians should look upon themselves as such a creative minority and ... espouse once again the best of its heritage, thereby being at the service of humankind at large." --Joseph Ratzinger

Advertisement

Advertisment

Mystic Monk

Contact Us

Books We Recommend

Blog Archive

An offended lesbian landed a street preacher in the hoosegow in the UK. You see, that's all it takes nowadays. At least back in the days when Peter and Paul were running around Rome you had to say something to offend Caesar to get arrested. But nowadays everyone is Caesar. And if any of our precious Caesars are offended, call for the lions.

A Christian street preacher was arrested and jailed last week in England after he was accused by a lesbian bystander of engaging in hate speech against homosexuals.

The incident occurred on Thursday while evangelist Rob Hughes was preaching on the streets of Basildon, Essex.

As he spoke, Hughes was approached by police, who advised that they had received a complaint that Hughes had engaged in hate speech by preaching against homosexuality. Police advised that such speech was a violation of the Public Order Act, Section 5, which bans “threatening, abusive or insulting words or behavior, or disorderly behavior” or the display of “any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting” within earshot of sight of a person “likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.”

As Hughes was interviewed by police on street, his friend, Andrew Noble, was also interrogated by officers.

“Did you say that homosexuality is sinful?” Noble remembers the police inquiring.

“I don’t think we said that today, but it is something that we would say,” he replied.

Noble told Christian News Network that a lesbian bystander had lodged a complaint against Hughes’ speech and falsely accused him of speaking against homosexual behavior.

Hughes was arrested on the street and transported to the local jail, where he was then fingerprinted and held in a cell.

I know there's a great deal of talk about whether Christians are being "persecuted." Well, Christians all over the globe are being killed and churches are being burned. So they say that Christians in the west aren't really being persecuted, it's just the growing pains of a more inclusive society. Funny, how a commitment to inclusiveness keeps putting Christians on the outs.

In the West, are Christians being killed? No. But Christians are losing their right to run a business and they're being thrown in jail for being Christian. That's more than inconvenience. A lot more.

Craig James, a sports analyst was just fired for saying during a campaign debate that gays would “have to answer to the Lord for their actions.” He was fired by Fox Sports for that.

The HHS Mandate forces Christian business owners to provide coverage for abortifacients, contraceptives and sterilization procedures.

A Christian bakery closed its doors citing "mafia tactics" from some after they refused to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding.

I don't know how anyone could possibly predict that it'll get easier to be a Christian in the near future. But Christianity has a funny way of spreading in times of persecution. The world seems to be growing darker. The light of Christianity will shine brighter.

I have heard street preachers all my life. People preach. People yell back...some. Others attempt debates or discussions. But I have never....until recently...heard about effectively making this illegal. Of course noon likes to hear they are winning. It hurts. Repent.

On the other hand if they just think Christianity is an opinion held by some, why on earth would you favor one over another. The gay advocacy is being puhed in our faces. If we replaced all this with Christianity, or Pepsi products or anything else, we would find it equally overt. I guess I don't understand why the majority of people are Christians, yet we feel persecuted. Seems like we could control who gets in office somehow.

In fairness, we ought to note that there was ample reason for Craig James to have been fired by Fox - or, better yet, not hired in the first place, going back to his unethical behavior in the contretemps with Mike Leach and Texas Tech while James was employed at ESPN. This alone should have been enough to disqualify James from any media position, let alone his foolish decision to run for the Senate in Texas.

Mind, I don't dispute that Fox probably is using his campaign comments as an excuse for firing him, and that's very wrong. But before we turn James into a martyr, we should keep in mind that just because someone is right on an issue, that doesn't give them immunity from being a jerk, and that we should be careful about supporting people who have the capacity to make us look like fools for having done so.

Um...aren't the police themselves using "threatening behavior" within earshot or sight of a person who was definitely "caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby"?

I can picture the future there...a person witnesses a purse-snatcher and yells "Stop, THIEF!" and is brought up on charges for using insulting words that caused the "alleged thief" (they're always ALWAYS "alleged" culprits) to experience distress (felt bad about themselves, was chased by cops, etc.)

Oh indeed, I don't disagree with you at all. I'm perfectly willing to heap deserved scorn upon Fox. But for people who might not be familiar with James' background, it's important to know who you're talking about else you leave yourself vulnerable to counterattack.

@Mitchell Hadley: Actually, it doesn't matter at all. If someone is fired from their job for various forms of unprofessional behavior, well and good. If they are explicitly—as in that's the reason cited in writing—fired because of their beliefs, then their professionalism, or lack thereof, has been rendered irrelevant.

@Sophia - I can't agree with you on that, at least not totally. While I certainly agree that Fox was wrong to fire James for the reason they gave, I would not hold up James as an argument in this case, because he's so easy to discredit. I see it akin to the "when did you stop beating your wife?" argument; knowing what I do about James, if someone were to tell me that his firing was scandalous, my first reaction would be (was, in fact) - "well, he shouldn't have been fired for that reason, but he's just getting what he should have gotten before."

Remember, the question I've raised here is not what happened to James and why, but whether or not the James case is the best to be used in advocating our position. Does this make what happened to him right? No, not at all, and I wouldn't suggest that. It's disgraceful, if in fact that's why Fox fired him. (Side note: I have my doubts that that's the only reason the dumped him; there's the ongoing lawsuit with Leach, not to mention that Fox Sports Southwest didn't consult the parent company before the hire. If Fox thinks they can score more points by blaiming his political beliefs, that's a scandal itself, but not the germane issue.)

In other words, if we're trying to make our case to the public, many of whom are hostile (or, at best, indifferent) to the issue of religious freedom, there has to be a better poster child than Craig James, who can be so easily discredited for other reasons.

"Poster child"? That's not what's happening here. Regardless of his past unprofessional behavior, a major corporation thinks "holds the normal human view of homosexuality" is entirely justifiable grounds for termination—even of a person who they, by your assertion, have other grounds for terminating. "We could've fired him for lots of reasons, but we're choosing to highlight his beliefs on homosexuality"—a major corporation says that, and you quibble about whether the victim is a good "poster child"?

Someone complained. The woman had to give her name to the police. If the preacher did not use her name, the preacher was speaking in general and not of, to, or about her. Doesn't the woman have to prove that she is a practicing lesbian with a case of injury. The law requires two witnesses to establish a judicial fact. Does the woman have standing to complain to authorities? Did the woman converse with the preacher before using public force? The preacher has two witnesses to his judicial fact: himself and the Author of the Holy Bible. The outlawing of religious beliefs and the imposition of a police state is more disconcerting and someone must complain, giving their name. The atheist will not say: "God save the Queen." Now, the atheist will not allow anyone to say: "God save the lesbian."

Obviously, this is a case of police abuse. There was no evidence that the preacher had said what this woman claimed he did.It may be wrong in some countries to say that homosexuality is a crime (crime is a state matter) but one should have the freedom to express an opinion on what is sinful (this is not a state matter).

With all due respect, Mitchell, I surely would like to see some credible sourcing for your charge that James behaved as a jerk, because I haven't found anything so far. Of course, I skipped the link to Keith Olbermann attacking James; if anything, that is a credit which argues for canonization.

Please provide some evidence of substance, because his firing fits an overall pattern of corporate sell-out to the homosexualist lobby. Fox has slowly been taking on the attributes of the rest of the corporate media in so many ways, so there better be a good excuse for this. You pose the outlines of a decent case for their action, but so far there's no there there.

It's significant that Mitchell Hadley (or anyone) should feel defensive that logic could be "discredited" by faulty logic. In fact it plays right into and supports the bizarre law and its enforcement by police cited in this article.

Correct Christian preaching condemns the sin, not the sinner. The person or their sexual attraction is not even the point of preaching Scripture on the street.

... so if Craig James said that gays would “have to answer to the Lord for their actions” then he was merely stating the viewpoint of a major religion - that aberrant homosexual BEHAVIOR is condemned. His own character as Suzanne and Sophia stated is irrelevant.

This is absurd and provides absolute proof that world has gone mad. It is no one's role to protects citizens from being offended. Couldn't the lesbian use her pea brain, walk away, and ignore the preacher? Or did she crave airing her VICTIM STATUS to all the world, so we could all have a pity party. Poor lesbian was offended. GET OVER IT !!! This isn't news. It's rubbish.

This is absurd and provides absolute proof that world has gone insanely mad. It is no one's job to protect citizens from being offended. Couldn't the dyke use her pea brain, walk away, and ignore the preacher? Or did she crave airing her "VICTIMHOOD" to all the world, so we could all have a pity party and she could have her 15 min. of fame? Poor lesbian was offended and wants to prohibit free speech. GET OVER IT !!! This isn't news. It's rubbish.